Technically you can create different users with very precise access permissions. Might not be the good idea to provide that kind of API to the general public, but if your clients are trustworthy, it might work.
That site is ran by a Brave employee[0]. The author claims that there's no COI, but one ought to be suspicious if Brave passes almost every single test barring the ones that no browser can pass.
I just don't understand this take. In every Chrome gripefest thread, there will be a comment about switching to Firefox that's at or near the top, and then a comment about Brave closer to the bottom. With half the replies to that comment being about crypto, or even smaller niche players like Vivaldi that are closed-source and don't even have an iOS version.
Look, I'm not into crypto. But it takes me about two clicks to turn off everything crypto-related in Brave (the main stuff that people complain about is opt-in and turned off by default anyway). The same amount of effort that it takes me to change Google as the default search engine in Firefox.
In both cases, those default settings are there because both browsers need SOME source of revenue. But in Brave's case, at least they are diversifying into different sources, such as a search engine and a Zoom-like video conferencing product. Whereas Firefox's entire existence is dependent on the Google dependency.
Nothing against Firefox. But I get far fewer (if any) website compatibility issues with Brave, the extension ecosystem is far better, and the ad-blocking is far superior (with Firefox I see YouTube ads on my phone with every ad-blocking extension I've tried, whereas with Brave I see no ads with the built-in blocker).
It just blows my mind that Brave gets dismissed by the HN crowd, on the basis of "crypto associations give me bad vibes", while Firefox's association with Google is completely hand-waved away. When my goal is to avoid Google, I get more bad vibes from Google. But that's just me.
Fairly easy to understand, for many Crypto is synonymous with 'bad actor'. Which isn't exactly without merit given the number of schemes, scams and outright law breaking elements that have surrounded the topic.
It doesn't matter if its legitimate, people will still understandably have issues with it.
It's a reflexive guilt-by-association instinct that many people have. Some people have used crypto in the past unethically, therefore everyone using crypto is unethical. I usually like to illustrate the problem with this fallacy by using it in a way that nearly everybody can quickly see: "do you have a dog? Hitler had a dog."
Brave gives me a strong negative gut reaction. I really doubt crypto goes well with ethics. Looking at some of Brave's past transgressions confirms it for me. Sure, you can turn it off, just like you can remove the pineapple from pizza, the pizza is still ruined though.
"Masterpeace" lol :) But I understand what you mean.
I didn't know McDonnell Douglas was such a bad company but I heard the same sentiment from Boeing people in that documentary about the 737 MAX, that after the merger they were being forced to cut corners by the new management.
_You_ are free, generally, to say whatever old nonsense you like. The rest of us, however, are free not to listen to it. You are not generally entitled to a platform.
There are Mastodon instances which will tolerate climate denial; you may want to stick to those.
Btw Bootstrapt is still there
EDIT: Semantic css is also bandwidth friendly for mobile connection.